Essays academic service


Fallacies mentioned in the love is a fallacy

Informal fallacy Informal fallacies — arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural formal flaws and usually require examination of the argument's content. Equivocation — the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time. The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position. See also the if-by-whiskey fallacy, below.

Ecological fallacy — inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong. Fallacy of quoting out of context contextotomy, contextomy; quotation mining — refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning.

Related to the appeal to authority not always fallacious. False dilemma false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy — two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options when in reality there are more.

Historian's fallacy — the assumption that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and had the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.

Historical fallacy — a set of considerations is thought to hold good only because a completed process is read into the content of the process which conditions this completed result. Explains without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process.

Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept. Explaining thought as something produced by a little thinker, a sort of homunculus inside the head, merely explains it as another kind of thinking as different but the same.

Incomplete comparison — insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison. Inconsistent comparison — different methods of comparison are used, leaving a false impression of the whole comparison.

Intentionality fallacy — the insistence that the ultimate meaning of an expression must be consistent with the intention of the person from whom the communication originated e. Mind projection fallacy — subjective judgments are "projected" to be inherent properties of an object, rather than being related to personal perceptions of that object.

Moralistic fallacy — inferring factual conclusions from purely evaluative premises in violation of fact—value distinction. For instance, inferring is from ought is an instance of moralistic fallacy. Moralistic fallacy is the inverse of naturalistic fallacy defined below. Moving the fallacies mentioned in the love is a fallacy raising the bar — argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other often greater evidence is demanded.

Nirvana fallacy perfect-solution fallacy — solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect. Onus probandi — from the Latin onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies or questions the claim. It is a particular case of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.

Also known as " shifting the burden of proof ".

Proof by assertion — a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction; sometimes confused with argument from repetition argumentum ad infinitum, argumentum fallacies mentioned in the love is a fallacy nauseam Prosecutor's fallacy — a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found.

Proving too much — using a form of argument that, if it were valid, could be used to reach an additional, invalid conclusion. Psychologist's fallacy — an observer presupposes the objectivity of their own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event. Referential fallacy [36] — assuming all words refer to existing things and that the meaning of words reside within the things they refer to, as opposed to words possibly referring to no real object or that the meaning of words often comes from how they are used.

Reification concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness — a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction abstract belief or hypothetical construct is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity.

In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something that is not a real thing, but merely an idea. Retrospective determinism — the argument that because an event has occurred under some circumstance, the circumstance must have made its occurrence inevitable.

Special pleading — a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption. Begging the question petitio principii — providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise.

When fallaciously used, the term's connotations are relied on to sway the argument towards a particular conclusion.

List of fallacies

For example, an organic foods advertisement that says "Organic foods are safe and healthy foods grown without any pesticides, herbicides, or other unhealthy additives. Fallacy of many questions complex question, fallacy of presuppositions, loaded question, plurium interrogationum — someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.

Faulty generalizations[ edit ] Faulty generalization — reach a conclusion from weak premises. Unlike fallacies of relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions yet only weakly buttress the conclusions. A faulty generalization is thus produced. Accident — an exception to a generalization is ignored. It happens when a conclusion is made of premises that lightly support it.

  • This is the inverse of the naturalistic fallacy;
  • Inconsistent comparison — different methods of comparison are used, leaving a false impression of the whole comparison;
  • First World problems are a subset of this fallacy;
  • Historical fallacy — a set of considerations is thought to hold good only because a completed process is read into the content of the process which conditions this completed result;
  • Proof by assertion — a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction; sometimes confused with argument from repetition argumentum ad infinitum, argumentum ad nauseam Prosecutor's fallacy — a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found.

Misleading vividness — involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem; this also relies on the appeal to emotion fallacy. Overwhelming exception — an accurate generalization that comes with qualifications that eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume.

Questionable cause[ edit ] Questionable cause - Is a general type error with many variants. Its primary basis is the confusion of association with causation. Either by inappropriately fallacies mentioned in the love is a fallacy or rejecting causation or a broader failure to properly investigate the cause of an observed effect.

The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa. Fallacy of the single cause causal oversimplification [51] — it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes. Furtive fallacy — outcomes are asserted to have been caused by the malfeasance of decision makers. Gambler's fallacy — the incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event.

If a fair coin lands on heads 10 times in a row, the belief that it is "due to the number of times it had previously landed on tails" is incorrect. In anthropologyit refers primarily to cultural beliefs that ritual, prayer, sacrifice, and taboos will produce specific supernatural consequences. In psychologyit refers to an irrational belief that thoughts by themselves can affect the world or that thinking something corresponds with doing it.

Regression fallacy — ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of post hoc fallacy. Relevance fallacies[ edit ] Appeal to the stone argumentum ad lapidem — dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.

See also irrelevant conclusion. Ad hominem — attacking the arguer instead of the argument. Circumstantial Ad Hominem - stating that the arguers personal situation or perceived benefit from advancing a conclusion means that their conclusion is wrong.

Kafka-trapping — A sophistical and unfalsifiable form of argument that attempts to overcome an opponent by inducing a sense of guilt and using the opponent's denial of guilt as further evidence of guilt.

Traitorous critic fallacy ergo decedo, 'thus leave' — a critic's perceived affiliation is portrayed as the underlying reason for the criticism and the critic is asked to stay away from the issue altogether. Easily confused with the association fallacy "guilt by association"below.

Appeal to authority argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam — an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it. Appeal to accomplishment — an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer.

Courtier's reply — a criticism is dismissed by claiming that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to credibly comment on the subject matter.

Appeal to consequences argumentum ad consequentiam — the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion.

  1. Either by inappropriately deducing or rejecting causation or a broader failure to properly investigate the cause of an observed effect. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.
  2. Moving the goalposts raising the bar — argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other often greater evidence is demanded. Kafka-trapping — A sophistical and unfalsifiable form of argument that attempts to overcome an opponent by inducing a sense of guilt and using the opponent's denial of guilt as further evidence of guilt.
  3. It is frequently a special kind of post hoc fallacy. Naturalistic fallacy fallacy [99] anti-naturalistic fallacy [100] — inferring an impossibility to infer any instance of ought from is from the general invalidity of is-ought fallacy, mentioned above.

Pooh-pooh — dismissing an argument perceived unworthy of serious consideration. Appeal to novelty argumentum novitatis, argumentum ad antiquitatis — a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern. Opposite of appeal to wealth.

Argumentum ad baculum appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat — an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position. This fallacy relies on the implied expertise of the speaker or on an unstated truism. The assumption that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a falsehood. First World problems are a subset of this fallacy. This is the inverse of the naturalistic fallacy.

Naturalistic fallacy — inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises [96] [97] in violation of fact—value distinction. Naturalistic fallacy in the stricter sense defined in the section " Conditional or questionable fallacies " below is a variety of this broader sense. Naturalistic fallacy sometimes confused with appeal to nature is the inverse of moralistic fallacy.

Is—ought fallacy [98] — statements about what is, on the basis of claims about what ought to be.

  1. Moralistic fallacy — inferring factual conclusions from purely evaluative premises in violation of fact—value distinction.
  2. For instance, is P. Inconsistent comparison — different methods of comparison are used, leaving a false impression of the whole comparison.
  3. Appeal to accomplishment — an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept.
  4. For example, an organic foods advertisement that says "Organic foods are safe and healthy foods grown without any pesticides, herbicides, or other unhealthy additives.
  5. This is the inverse of the naturalistic fallacy.

Naturalistic fallacy fallacy [99] anti-naturalistic fallacy [100] — inferring an impossibility to infer any instance of ought from is from the general invalidity of is-ought fallacy, mentioned above. For instance, is P.